Do many Americans take offence at evolutionary theory?
Sep 20th, 2013, 10:56 AM
#103
While The Book of Genesis is in the Old Testament of course, I've never met a Jew, me and my family included, who believe in creationism. Most Jews do not take the Bible literally. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone here will correct me.
Sep 20th, 2013, 11:00 AM
#104
I agree with Laurieco, this is not in any Jewish tradition to which I have been exposed. And I can not remember meeting anyone of any faith who believed in creationism, or at least anyone who expressed that to me.
Sep 20th, 2013, 11:01 AM
#105
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sep 20th, 2013, 11:35 AM
#106
I agree with Laurieco, this is not in any Jewish tradition to which I have been exposed. And I can not remember meeting anyone of any faith who believed in creationism, or at least anyone who expressed that to me.>>
nikki - perhaps they realised the sort of response they'd get.
FrankS - if Adam lived for 1000 years, why can't the rest of us live that long? and I note that you have avoided answering my question about why you feel able to pick and choose about which bits of the bible to take literally, and which not.
no need to start a new thread, we'd all be VERY happy for you to use this one.
nikki - perhaps they realised the sort of response they'd get.
FrankS - if Adam lived for 1000 years, why can't the rest of us live that long? and I note that you have avoided answering my question about why you feel able to pick and choose about which bits of the bible to take literally, and which not.
no need to start a new thread, we'd all be VERY happy for you to use this one.
Sep 20th, 2013, 11:50 AM
#107
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ann,
Adam
The traditional view of Adams life: Adam was born immortal, but fell by eating of the fruit. He died in that 'day'(a day being a 1000yrs Peter 3:8). Later, God further reduced the years of mortals to 120yrs(Gen 6:3)
A modern view I do not agree with is that the natural laws changed after the flood. Proponents of this position claim that it would answer the carbon decay data.
The Mosaic law:
the Mosaic Law is perfect and was given to a Covenant people. That Law was impossible to keep and required a Messiah to keep it & justify HIS people. While we dont and cant honour all of it(like temple sacrifices), we look to it for guidance. That guidance can be literal, or metaphoric. for instance we learn that we pay our Pastors in the New Testament by the OT law "1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? "
Adam
The traditional view of Adams life: Adam was born immortal, but fell by eating of the fruit. He died in that 'day'(a day being a 1000yrs Peter 3:8). Later, God further reduced the years of mortals to 120yrs(Gen 6:3)
A modern view I do not agree with is that the natural laws changed after the flood. Proponents of this position claim that it would answer the carbon decay data.
The Mosaic law:
the Mosaic Law is perfect and was given to a Covenant people. That Law was impossible to keep and required a Messiah to keep it & justify HIS people. While we dont and cant honour all of it(like temple sacrifices), we look to it for guidance. That guidance can be literal, or metaphoric. for instance we learn that we pay our Pastors in the New Testament by the OT law "1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? "
Sep 20th, 2013, 12:04 PM
#109
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I thought Genesis 5:5 said Adam lived 930 years.
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. 6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enoch.
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. 6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enoch.
Sep 20th, 2013, 12:18 PM
#111
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, who decides if you take scripture literal or metaphoric?<<
Thats a debate in Christian circles. In general, the Law has more meaning than just outward compliance as we see from the Sermon on the Mount
Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Thats a debate in Christian circles. In general, the Law has more meaning than just outward compliance as we see from the Sermon on the Mount
Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Sep 20th, 2013, 01:53 PM
#114
The Mosaic law:
the Mosaic Law is perfect and was given to a Covenant people. That Law was impossible to keep and required a Messiah to keep it & justify HIS people. While we dont and cant honour all of it(like temple sacrifices), we look to it for guidance>>
forgive me FrankS, this is pretty puzzling. how can a law be at once "perfect" and "impossible to keep"? an oxymoron if ever I saw one. i can understand looking to it for guidance, but who decides, and how, which bits to take literally, and which not? surely you can't just apply the criterion "we'll ignore the impossible bits and obey the others" as that will vary with the prevailing circumstances - what is impossible now [eg temple sacrifices, and surely they are not impossible, just illegal] was not impossible in the time of Jesus, and indeed happened regardless of His presence on earth.
How, exactly, did Jesus "keep it and justify HIS people"? what does that mean?
the Mosaic Law is perfect and was given to a Covenant people. That Law was impossible to keep and required a Messiah to keep it & justify HIS people. While we dont and cant honour all of it(like temple sacrifices), we look to it for guidance>>
forgive me FrankS, this is pretty puzzling. how can a law be at once "perfect" and "impossible to keep"? an oxymoron if ever I saw one. i can understand looking to it for guidance, but who decides, and how, which bits to take literally, and which not? surely you can't just apply the criterion "we'll ignore the impossible bits and obey the others" as that will vary with the prevailing circumstances - what is impossible now [eg temple sacrifices, and surely they are not impossible, just illegal] was not impossible in the time of Jesus, and indeed happened regardless of His presence on earth.
How, exactly, did Jesus "keep it and justify HIS people"? what does that mean?
Sep 20th, 2013, 02:01 PM
#116
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How, exactly, did Jesus "keep it and justify HIS people"? what does that mean?<<
He kept the Law and became perfection for us because we could not. Original sin made keeping the Law impossible for us. We receive everlasting life being IN him, we are raised from death through HIM.
The Church is the BRIDE and Christ is the Groom, we become ONE as marriage pictures in the LAW. W, like any Bride, is the weaker vessel.
He kept the Law and became perfection for us because we could not. Original sin made keeping the Law impossible for us. We receive everlasting life being IN him, we are raised from death through HIM.
The Church is the BRIDE and Christ is the Groom, we become ONE as marriage pictures in the LAW. W, like any Bride, is the weaker vessel.
Sep 20th, 2013, 02:13 PM
#117
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, who decides if you take scripture literal or metaphoric?>
Whatever one fits in with the dogma of that schism of Christianity the best.
Jesus OMG I can't believe any intelligent adult would believe all that crapola in THE (Their) Bible - the silly story of the Arc, Adam living to be a 1,000 years old, Jesus turning water into wine (I think they got that reversed - turning wine into water perhaps) and on and on.
Well I guess intelligent adults who honestly look at the proof or in this case complete lack of except their Bible and still believe it are just acting like silly kids - like Einstein famously said about the Bible - 'silly childish tales'.
the real thing that gets me is the righteousness these idiots have in thinking they and only their and their own religion sees the light and all others are doomed to Hell.
And what if there were a God or Goddess or Godit? That would be no God I would want to honor but to crucify for all the terrible things he lets happen in our world to His/Her/Its children.
Frank there is a bridge in Alaska I will sell you for a song and or a dance.
Whatever one fits in with the dogma of that schism of Christianity the best.
Jesus OMG I can't believe any intelligent adult would believe all that crapola in THE (Their) Bible - the silly story of the Arc, Adam living to be a 1,000 years old, Jesus turning water into wine (I think they got that reversed - turning wine into water perhaps) and on and on.
Well I guess intelligent adults who honestly look at the proof or in this case complete lack of except their Bible and still believe it are just acting like silly kids - like Einstein famously said about the Bible - 'silly childish tales'.
the real thing that gets me is the righteousness these idiots have in thinking they and only their and their own religion sees the light and all others are doomed to Hell.
And what if there were a God or Goddess or Godit? That would be no God I would want to honor but to crucify for all the terrible things he lets happen in our world to His/Her/Its children.
Frank there is a bridge in Alaska I will sell you for a song and or a dance.
Sep 20th, 2013, 02:45 PM
#118
I really don't care what people believe, if they'd just keep it to themselves. Nothing makes me angrier than proselytizers, except people trying to implement their belief systems through legislation. (Or lack of legislation - these creationists tend to be global warming deniers, too.)
Sep 20th, 2013, 02:53 PM
#119
He kept the Law and became perfection for us because we could not. Original sin made keeping the Law impossible for us. We receive everlasting life being IN him, we are raised from death through HIM.>>
Frank - that's meaningless in the context of what you originally wrote - which was supposed to be an explanation of how you pick certain bits of the Bible to believe literally and other bits, you choose to interpret "metaphorically" to use your phrase.
How does original sin stop you keeping the law not to wear two sorts of fibre together? or prevent you from stoning adulterers?
Frank - that's meaningless in the context of what you originally wrote - which was supposed to be an explanation of how you pick certain bits of the Bible to believe literally and other bits, you choose to interpret "metaphorically" to use your phrase.
How does original sin stop you keeping the law not to wear two sorts of fibre together? or prevent you from stoning adulterers?
Sep 20th, 2013, 03:59 PM
#120
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going waaaaay back to the original question, no, there are not many Americans who take offence at the mention of Evolutionary Theory. There are a small percentage who do reject the theory, but most of us do not discuss religion. I recall being surprised, stunned is more like it, when I was talking with a very close colleague on a trip to a proposed nuclear repository site. There was a great deal of fossilization exposed in the strata we were looking at, and I said something about evolution. This very intelligent chap, he has three Phds, said, "Well, I don't believe in evolution. That stuff is put there to test our faith."
"Ooooh-K, Larry", I said, and changed the subject.
There are some out there, but it is a puzzlement.
"Ooooh-K, Larry", I said, and changed the subject.
There are some out there, but it is a puzzlement.
